Komal K Das

Asstt. Prof.,
Hindustan Institute of Technology and Management (HITM), Agra
NH-2. Agra Delhi Highway Keetham, Agra; U.P. PIN-282007
komal1316@gmail.com

Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay

Professor
GLA University,
17KM Stone NH-2, PO Akbarpur Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281406
ashwani.upadhyay@gla.ac.in

Subrata Das
Associate Prof.,
Hindustan College of Science & Technology(HCST), Mathura
Agra-Delhi Highway (NH-2), Farah, Distt. Mathura; U.P. ; PIN-281122
subrata.das.hcst@sgei.org

TOPIC : STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING

A Review
SALES TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS
ABSTRACT
The current market situation is twofold, organizations are coping with the present marketplace
scenario of globalization, tough competition, technology and changing demographics whereas
salespeople face sophisticated and knowledgeable customers, impinging enormous pressure to
perform at levels never seen and faced before. Sustainability through skilled sales force serves as
a primary rationale for organizations to invest in sales training. Thus sales organization now
emphasizing on competencies and commitment for continual learning apart from task-related
knowledge, skills, and abilities, which is now required, expected and demanded from all
workforce. These aspects likely to bring significant changes in the strategic approach towards
sale training content, learning and methodology. This paper aims to build a narrative literature
review in relation to Sales Force Training evaluation and effectiveness articles published
between 1982- 2012. A study conducted during Dec.2011 Oct 2012, examines emergence and
impact of competencies, methodologies, transfer of learning on training effectiveness, over a
period. Several research gaps were identified especially in the areas of performance
improvement for managers as well as factors affecting learning adoption, contents and trainees'
perceptions. The paper closes with some observation on sales training effectiveness aspects and
emphasis on efficiency and several specific areas of further research were identified. Study
provide a clearer view of major issues related to the field of Sales Training effectiveness for
business

organizations,

policy

makers,

practitioners,

researchers,

and

academicians.

Keywords: sales, sales training, sales effectiveness, businesses performance, Literature Review,
effectiveness, evaluation, conceptual, framework

JEL Classification : M / M00 - General/ M1 - Business Administration /M10 General

1.

INTRODUCTION

To function effectively in the current and future marketplace, investing in sales training is a
sensible practice for improving bottom-line results (Crane et al., 2005). While dynamic market
enforcing organizations take aggressive approach relational to sales training to update their
personal knowledge and skills. Salad & Stagl, (2009) view sales training as a mechanism for
producing cognitive and behavioral learning outcomes. Fifty years of sales training have
witnessed tremendous growth, particularly in the past decade. Dynamic technological
advancements enforcing organizations to restructure sales training and for this fundamental
reason to break new ground, across the globe, a considerable amount of investments and time
were coupled to reinforce sales training programs. Sustainability through skilled sales force
serves as the primary rationale for organizations to invest in sales training. However Arguinis &
Kruger (2009) argue in the present knowledge economy, skills required to maintain a
competitive advantage are in vogue. Research in performance evaluations, embodies an
expansive literature. How sales managers evaluate their sales force, is an issue of fundamental
importance (Chonko et al. 2000). A performance evaluation of salesperson is a crucial factor for
both theoretical and pragmatic reasons (Barone, 2012). Performance evaluations is a reflection of
past performance whereas its aspects are all about future i.e. promotion, incentives, reward or
termination (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994). Thus it is important to understand what exactly

affect theses aspects in enhancing the effectiveness of salespeople through evaluation, thereby,
firm success. Further there is need to understand how sales managers evaluate the performance
of their salespeople as it obviously correlated with salesperson productivity and, consequently,
organizations prospects for success. However top management usually finds evaluation results
being too theoretical, unable to provide meaningful information for strategic decisions. Moreover
little attention has been focused on sales training evaluation practices and transfer, being
multifaceted often without criterion; often sales training does not measure the potential benefits
(Johnston and Marshall, 2008). In light of these aspects, the focus of our literature review
centered on performance and effectiveness (evaluation) aspects of sales training. In this review,
we have focused on past three decades of sales training evaluation research published from 1982
to August 2012 and our review is selective and descriptive. We have focused significantly on
post training aspect, performance and transfer of sales training. Our review is organized as
follows. In the first section we have discussed theoretical advancements and issues in sales
training with respect to performance evaluation and transfer of training over the past thirty years.
In the second section, we segregate inconsistent and unexpected findings, gaps and research
needs followed by insights reinforcement. In the third section we conclude with some
observations and recent trends and finally a conceptual framework is proposed. Training is a
learning process that not only develops temporary rather bring out total permanent change in the
mind set, behavior and the ability of the salesperson and motivates them to acquire new skill for
better and sustainable performance (Singh et al.,1998).
2.1

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Sales training has been cited as useful and effective intervention to improve performance of sales
force (Katzell and Guzzo, 1983). Sales training primarily directed toward teaching selling

process to inexperienced salespeople, in a relatively short time, the skills of the more
experienced members of the sales force(Weitz et al. 1986). Sales training facilitates
understanding of selling practices" which also supplement learning by activities, experiences
that emphasize on skills and acquisition of knowledge aligned to organizational goals.
Evaluation certainly ensures that sales training fulfills organizational needs within existing
resources and culture (Goldstein and Buxton 1982). The purpose of evaluations basically identify
existing value, quality, and contribution of sales training to justify training investment decisions
and formalize future improvement. (Kirkpatrick, 1996). Training evaluation literature conveys
that training outcomes are multi-dimensional and thus require multiple criteria to be evaluated
(Landy 1989).
The training evaluation practice framework has been provided by Kirkpatrick known as
Kirkpatricks evaluation framework have acronym TKM (The Kirkpatrick Model) having four
levels, reaction, learning, behavior and result has been popular and adopted framework in
training evaluation. These levels of TKM viewed as contemporary thought in evaluation area.
Kirkpatrick (1959; 1960) suggested that behavioral and results measures are useful external
indicators of actual knowledge transfer. Ironically much focus was on internal measures (Alliger
and Janak 1989; Saari et.al. 1988). Kirkpatrick (1960) suggested that behavioral and results
measures are useful external indicators of actual knowledge transfer, however, emphasized, all
four levels should be measured (1996). Kirkpatrick (1996) emphasized, all four levels must be
measured i.e. training must be evaluated at all four levels, as these levels are interrelated to
properly assess training effectiveness. A fifth level of evaluation was added, through
contributions of Phillips (2003) who incorporated Return on Investment (ROI). ROI was related
to financial outcomes of sales training against cost of training (Phillips, 1996). Studies shows

ROI had been conducted for around 10-20% of all sales training (Frances Lilly, 2001). Earlier
most sales evaluation was related to sales volume measures, although shift is now taking place
toward relationship selling behaviors (Barksdale, 2000). Kirkpatricks four-level model
commonly accepted by academics, whereas Phillips (1996) model, finds acceptance in
organizations (Bates, 2004). Although Fred Nickols (2004) contribution of five main purposes of
evaluation regarded as a directional pathway towards designing evaluation. While Jim
Kirkpatrick (2007), stimulates new insights on determining Return-on-expectations" (ROE),
and emphasize training begins with end result in mind (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Further propose
replacing ROI by ROE as emphasize for tying training initiatives to organization mission and
thus, determine the extent to which degree of expectation had been met (Kirkpatrick, 2011).
Hung (2010) study provided a guide for training professionals which aids decision making i.e.
which evaluation level can be implemented as priority. Stein, D. (2011) recommends sales
training to be timely, relevant, realistic, reoccurring and robust. Strategic training approaches
such as active and action learning, on-the-workplace and just-in- time training, lifelong and selfdirected learning, are all currently being explored. The next advance in sales training would be
customization and delivering of virtual and mobile sales training modules matched to and
accessed by each individual needs, customization can be done consulting with peers, manager or
mentor or by individuals themselves.
2.2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN SALES TRAINING
Performance evaluations of workforce are most frequently addressed issues (Cascio and Aguinis
2008).Research in performance evaluations, embodies an expansive literature. The literature
suggests that sales training could increase sales force performance as reinforces critical behavior
and learning orientation (Walker, Churchill, & Ford, 1977). The performance refereed as a

process which emphasizes the skills required to completing job specific task as per procedures.
How sales managers evaluate their sales force, has been issue of fundamental importance.
(Chonko et al. 2000). It is necessary to understand how practicing sales managers evaluate
performance of their salespeople as it is correlated with salesperson productivity and,
consequently, organizations prospects for success. A performance evaluation of salesperson is
crucial factor for both theoretical and pragmatic reasons (Barone, 2012). Thus it is important to
understanding what exactly affect theses aspects in enhancing the effectiveness of salespeople
and, thereby, firm success.
Performance evaluation is a reflection of past performance, but its aspects are about
future organizational value supplemented with promotion, incentives, reward or could also be
termination (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994). In nutshell, purpose of evaluation being selfcorrecting process, and to enhance knowledge, skills, and ability to improve work performance
thereby organizational value. Nevertheless, performance evaluation is crucial to ensure sales
training effectiveness, which also leads towards more improved future sales training (Spitzer,
1999). Martin (1957) categorized training evaluation measures as internal or external. However,
Kirkpatricks four-level model commonly accepted by academics, whereas Phillips (1996)
model, finds acceptance in organizations (Bates 2004). A fifth level of evaluation is added,
through contributions of Phillips (2003) who incorporated Return on Investment (ROI). Nickols
(2004) reveals differentiation between evaluation and measurement, although his contribution of
five main purposes of evaluation regarded as a directional pathway towards designing an
evaluation. All levels were not being measured , while ASTD researchers strongly backs notion
that sales training required to be evaluated more at Levels three and four. Baldwin and Ford
(1988) suggested directions for future research after comprehensive review. Grossman (2009),

used Baldwin and Fords model to identified factors relating to trainee characteristics, design and
the work-place that exhibited consistent relation with transfer of training/learning. It has been
already found that trainee characteristics are being crucial in learning transfer (Burke &
Hutchins, 2007), self-efficacy being significant linked to both training motivation and outcomes
(Colquitt et al.,2000), cognitive ability does influence training outcomes (Burke & Hutchins,
2007) and positive relationship exists between self-efficacy and transfer (Blume et al.,2010).
Further motivation to learn emerged as integral trait to learning transfer or training outcomes
(Baldwin et al., 2009) while supervisor support also emerged as considerable indicator of
learning transfer (Blume et al., 2010). Its already been perceived that organizations should
initiate evaluation during process of sales training rather than to wait for completion of formal
sales training (Salas & Stagl, 2009). Concordantly lack of learning reinforcement following the
sales training obviously fails to produce effectiveness and value for organization. However, the
evaluation of training outcomes is complex and much difficult process. Therefore organizations
must enhance the professional evaluation capabilities of Human Resource (HR) staff or employ
specialized external agency and focus on goal, objective and performance related traininglearning pedagogies while conducting performance evaluation. Thoughtful approach and
professional knowledge on sales training evaluation have been inadequate, which dramatically
causes multifaceted difficulties during training evaluation. We perceive that HR personnel
responsible for evaluating training are not competent enough in assessing behavioral changes and
performance; thereby exploration for innovative approaches is need of hour.
There also exists several additional perspectives on training evaluation, Bramley and
Newby (2007), Instructional systems design process segregate evaluation as formative and
summative, where formative (internal evaluation) method judge training worth during training

process, eventually helpful in anticipating trainer/instructor effectiveness and also training

design. While summative (external evaluation) method judge the training worth only after
completion of training which measures TKPs Level 3, 4 and 5 thereafter address outcome or
result. The accountable relevance of evaluation research were identification of five main
purposes of evaluation, feedback (quality evaluation), quality (cost economics), research
(mission ), intervention (critical skills), and dominance (manipulation). Jim Kirkpatrick (2011)
strongly argues that its impossible to mathematically calculate outcome/result of performances.
Its obvious that analytically its difficult to segregate impact of sales training from organizational
financial result. ROE might be practical and feasible to indicate successful training, i.e.
expectations had been met. Henceforth by replacing ROI by ROE, it would be possible to
determine the degree of expectation met. (Kirkpatrick, 2011).
2.3

TRANSFER OF TRAINING
Since long time researchers were dealing with the transfer problem, tried to uncover

various aspects, ironically, inconsistencies always existed thus organizations find it difficult to
understand crucial factors. Using Baldwin and Fords model Grossman (2009), identified factors
relating to trainee characteristics training design and the work climate indicate significant
relation relative to transfer of training. While self-efficacy related to transfer of training, defined
as salespeople ability to execute job task (Bandura, 1982). Presently trainee motivation emerged
as significant contributor to transfer (Baldwin et al., 2009). Motivation levels that can be
influenced through intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, which subsequently leads to increased
salesperson performance (Jonathan et al. 2004). Conventionally, sales evaluation and incentives
primarily influenced by the percentage of sales target achievement only, although recent
evaluation leverage additional rewards for relationship selling behaviors (Boles et. al. 2000);

customer satisfaction and retention (Peppers & Rogers 1997). In a study Tziner et al. (2007)
found that motivation to learn was significant contributor to training outcomes. Helie (2005)
suggest that learning can be divided into general task-related components and stimulus-related
task, which can best explained by model of partitioning. Further proposed decomposition of
skills where performance can be improved either through decomposing exposure to stimuli or
exposure to task. The competencies or skills are segregated in general proficiencies category,
which are easily transferable to new situations (Hillstrom & Logan, 1998). Therefore, it has been
perceived that vigil on transfer of learning must be relational to longer duration in order to reveal
promising impact of sales training (Haider & Frensch, 2002). However effectiveness aspect of
sales training no longer considered a vogue. Reasons are several, industry report stated in a
billion-dollar sales industry ; 90% of all sales training fails (CSO Insights, 2010, Organization
that tracks trends related to sales effectiveness) and only 59.4 percent of salespeople met allotted
quota and that too at discounted rate. McKinsey, trusted and pioneer global management
consulting firm in March 2010, in their global survey result mentioned that organizations
around the world have spend nearly $100 billion per year to train their employee, on the
contrary, few handful workforce had acquired or applied

job-work related skills and

competencies. in their routine tasks. Further study questions effectiveness on pretext that only 10
per cent of sales training expenditures actually transfer to the job (Georgenson, 1982). Moreover,
Rummler (1995) undermines the position that classroom sales training (real or virtual) is
appropriate 15% of development needs. In a nutshell, despite consistent, regular, periodic sales
training interventions, many organizations fail to develop the skills of their workforce
(IBM,2008). In light of these developments, Miller Heiman Sales Best Practices Study in 2012
provided insights that salespeoples core competencies need to be effective.

3.1

INCONSISTENT AND UNEXPECTED FINDINGS

A paucity is noted for research concerning sales training evaluation practices by several

scholars. However little attention has been devoted to training evaluation practices (Landy,
1989). Literature have limited evidence of systematic evaluation of training (Kirkpatrick, 1968;
and Saari et.al., 1988). In the area of training evaluation research, Landy (1989) observed some
unplanned studies where definite conclusion has not been consolidated. Most of evaluations were
related to trainees reaction only (Alliger and Janak, 1989). Saari et.al, (1988) observed easy
methods were used frequently, as forms filling exercise by participants and feedback by
supervisors or managers. Sugrue and Rivera (2005) reported training evaluations statistics as: for
Level 3 & 4 as between 4 - 8%. Ironically, levels of highest importance often neglected. ASTD
researchers are of opinion that sales training required to be evaluated at levels three and four.
The general notion among scholar is that evaluation of training is important, however,
Kirkpatrick level three and four is often neglected. Some of the studies use easier approach such
as yes/no responses to conclude findings. Model of Kaufman and Keller (1994) based on TKM,
argues that Kirkpatrick model, have been positioned for only evaluating training, and now there
is need for advanced and proactive model. Many research questions have been targeted towards
financial outcome, but lacks empirical data to provide justification (Acemoglu & Pischke, 1999).
The significant constraint had been use of only Level 1 to assess training output (Ham, 1994).
Moreover self-reporting methodology has been the dominant factor over behavioral observations
(Phillips, 1990). Blume et al. (2010) undermines the learning transfer literature having mixed
findings also lacks empirical evidences. Transfer of training is vital constituent of sales training
process, despite of this fact transfer of sales training remains subject which has not been
researched thoroughly. Jacobs & Washington (2003), suggested that there exists relationship

between individual development and organizational performance. Although not a single study
has projected a clear-cut relation between employee development and organizational
development. In previous four decades training evaluation and learning transfer has never
been effective and primarily used for theory development (Wang, Dou, & Li, 2002).
3.2

NEW INSIGHTS TO CARRY FORWARD

Researchers should pursue topics of high importance to practicing managers. Training

evaluation literature conveys that training outcomes are multidimensional and thus require
multiple criteria to be evaluated (Landy 1989). Conventionally much focus was on internal
measures by organizations (Alliger and Janak 1989). Underutilized theories should be employed
more regularly (Marshall and Michel, 2001). Also, research can be aimed to connect individual
level outcomes to firm level performance. We perceive that organizations interested to measure
organizational level outcomes then measuring knowledge transfer or transfer of learning could be
the best indicator among Kirkpatricks four levels of evaluations. Although one cannot measure
business impacts since numerous variables are involved but level four considered as most
tangible (Goldberg & Ramos, 2003). Inconsistent and unexpected findings of models in existing
published literature may insufficient for studying the transfer process. Rainbird (2000) argues
that the primary purpose of the workplace is not learning, but to perform sales and services; and
therefore organizations may not provide sufficient resources for learning, as opposed to working.
In an era when majority of the formal and informal training activities still involve the transfer of
learned behavior, we should give significant consideration to functional role of sales trainees.
This indicates us that there may be few essential but hidden variables we need to target.
Normally trainees have privilege to choose and what to transfer (regardless of any learning
approach), individual intentions become more significant. Attitudinal studies also have

conflicting findings. Keeping this as reference we might have ignored one important attitude, i.e.
attitude toward learning transfer behavior. Holton et al. (2000), view work attitudes might be
related to learning transfer behavior. Trainees attitude towards the learning transfer behavior
should be relevant while explaining transfer behavior. The variable self-efficacy is treated as a
robust motivational variable (Bell and Kozlowski 2002 and Wood et al. 2000). According to
Ajzen (2002), behavioral intention probably is most influential variable which predict specific
human behavior. Krueger (2000) argues that individual trainee and contextual variables exert
influence on a specific behavior through behavioral intention henceforth not directly linked to
the behavior. Incorporating multiple factors into training programs might not be financially
practical for many organizations. The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between
technologies and the personal touch needed to sell effectively, through Sales Training.
4.0 MANGERIAL IMPLICATION
Sales training augment or supplement learning which emphasize on skills and knowledge
acquisition in direct support of performance goals. sales training serves as a powerful tool for
producing the targeted cognitive, behavioral and affective learning outcomes, essential for
survival (Salas & Stagl, 2009). Stein, D. (2011) recommends sales training to be Regular,
Relevant, Realistic, and Reoccurring for having competitive advantage and high organizational
value. Learning orientation has positive impact on firm performance (Farell, 2000). Sales
managers who are effective in coaching consistently deliver more value to their organizations.
The goal of sales training being master required competencies and to apply them to their day-today routines (Noe, 2008). Sales training should not be considered as one-time affairs as rarely
produce results, rather a process which consumes significant portion of time. An effective sales
training approach should focus on imparting best behaviors and practices for enhancing

organizational value, preferably through interactive way, followed by reinforcement and

evaluation which of course needs considerable amount of time. During the last ten years,
development of sales management systems is probably one of the greatest happening in business
circuit that moved sales training from the realm of art to that of science, which also calls for
consistent improvements. Now onwards, sales training activities should take on the role of
educating, informing, instructing and developing the sales team, using real world scenarios
currently being experienced by the sales force. Training helps in achieving the end result by
performing task effectively to sustain and survive, an systematic pathway, integral to training is
knowledge acquisition and development of skills and learning from the past events and activities
(Singh et al.,1998).
5.0

CONCLUSION
Sales or Selling in any organization is considered as a pivotal function as generate

revenue to ensure sustainability of all organizational activities. In present buyer driven market,
selling process indulges lots of technologies hence updating is essential for sales people coping
latest technological advancements. Sales peoples are the front lines of a sales organization who
are on constant move backed up by motivation and support of sales managers who in turn
achieve overall specific objective and role of the sales organization. Also incorporate training for
higher management executives, the message automatically conveyed to middle and lower
management staff that the training is essential. Research can offer guidelines for practitioners
and professionals on how to analyze, design, develop, implement and evaluate sales training
functions. More research is needed to empirically verify framework to evaluate whether sales
training has been effective in achieving organizational goals. Thus clear-cut understanding
required to be gained about how a sales training program works, which thereby can enables top

management to set priorities. Today this is need to explore the underutilized domains such as
highly complex social networks involved in contemporary selling. In an era of dynamic
advances, organizations must be flexible for making adjustments to remain competitive. Finally,
sales training effectiveness can be enhanced by developing a culture where focus is concentrated
on critical skills , key competencies and sales force development to drive business forward.
Ensure organization can extend provisions and resources to build core skills, significantly ensure
training gives the feel of strategic session to pierce new accounts, to distinguish training result in
sales results.

REFERENCES
1. Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. a. (1989). Kirkpatrick S Levels Of Training Criteria: Thirty
Years Later. Personnel Psychology, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp. 331 342.
2. Artis, A., and Harris, E. (2007). Self-Directed Learning and Sales Force Performance:
An Integrated Framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Volume
27, Issue 1, pp. 924. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from the EBSCO database.
3. Attia, A. M., Honeycutt Jr., E. D., & Leach, M. P. (2005). A Three-Stage Model For
Assessing And Improving Sales Force Training And Development. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp. 253268. Retrieved December
13, 2011, from the EBSCO database.
4. Barone, M. J., & DeCarlo, T. E. (2012). Performance Trends and Salesperson
Evaluations: The Moderating Roles of Evaluation Task, Managerial Risk Propensity, and
Firm Strategic Orientation. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Volume
XXXII, Issue 2, pp. 924. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from the EBSCO database.

5. Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Post-training Strategies For Facilitating Positive Transfer: An

Empirical Exploration. Academy of management Journal, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp. 503
520.
6. Burke, L. a., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training Transfer: An Integrative Literature
Review. Human Resource Development Review, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 263-296.
7. Cheng, E. W. L., & Hampson, I. (2008). Transfer of training: A review and new
insights. International Journal of Management Reviews, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp. 327
341.
8. Stein.D.,2011, Developing Winning Sales Teams. T+D, (June).
http://www.astd.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2011/06/Developing-Win ning-

Sales-Teams
9. Donald B. (2010). Training and the Bottom Line: A Study of Sales Training and
Behavioral Coaching. Thesis, California American University.
10. Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., & Kennedy, K. N. (2011). A Global Perspective On The Current
State Of Sales Education In The College Curriculum. Journal of Personal Selling Sales
Management, Volume XXXI, Issue 1, pp. 5575.
11. Erffmeyer, R. C., Russ, K. R., & Hair, J. F. (1991). Needs Assessment and Evaluation in
Sales-Training Programs. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Volume 11,
Issue 1, pp.17-30. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from the EBSCO database.
12. Erffmeyer, R. C., & Johnson, D. A. (1997). The future of sales training: Making choices
among six distance education methods. The Journal of Business Industrial Marketing,
Volume 12, Issue 3, pp. 185195.

13. Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2009). The transfer of training: what really matters.
International Journal of Training and Development, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp. 103-120.
14. Honeycutt, E. D., Ford, J. B., & Rao, C. P. (1995). Sales Training and Education Sales
Training: Executives Research Needs. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Volume XV, Issue 4, pp. 163-183.
15. Hung, T.-K. (2010). An Empirical Study of the Training Evaluation Decision-Making
Model to Measure Training Outcome. Social Behavior and Personality: an international
journal, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp. 87-101.
16. HUNG, T.K. (2010). An empirical study of the training evaluation decision-making
model to measure training outcome. Social Behavior and Personality: an international
journal, Volume 38, Issue 1,pp.87-101.
17. Huang, W. (2009). A Comparison Of The Influences Of Different Training Approaches
On Trainees Achieve Training Outcomes Among Bankers In Taiwan. Ph.D.diss., The
Ohio State University.
18. Jeeyon Pack. (2005). Study on Training programme characteristics and training
effectiveness. Thesis, The Ohio State University.
19. Kirkpatrick, B. J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K., 2011, The Beginning the End is. ASTD
http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Portals/0/Storage/Newsletter%20articles/Creating

%20ROE%20ASTD%2011%2011.pdf. Accessed on January 16, 2011.

20. Lassk, F. G., Ingram, T. N., Kraus, F., & Di Mascio, R. (2012). The Future of Sales
Training: Challenges and Related Research Questions. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 141154.

21. Lien, B. Y. H., Hung, R. Y. Y., & McLean, G. N. (2007). Training evaluation based on
cases of Taiwanese benchmarked high-tech companies. International Journal of
Training and Development, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 3548.
22. Markose, B. (2001). The Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours on Goal
Orientation and Performance of Salespeople.' Journal of Retailing, Volume 80, Issue 3,
pp.165-180.
23. Powers, T. L., DeCarlo, T. E., & Gupte, G. (2010). An Update on the Status of Sales
Management Training. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Volume 30,
Issue 4, pp. 319326.
24. Rich, G. A. (1998). Selling and Sales Management in Action The Constructs of Sales
Coaching: Supervisory Feedback , Role Modeling and Trust. Journal of Selling & Sales
Management, Volume XV, Issue 1, pp. 5363. Retrieved January 16,2011, from the
EBSCO database.
25. Sager, J. K., Yi, J., & Futrell, C. M. (1998). A Model Depicting Salespeople s
Perceptions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Volume XV , Issue 3,
pp. 122. Retrieved January 16,2011, from the EBSCO database.
26. Salas, E., & Cannon-bowers, J. A. (2001). The Science Of Training: A Decade of
Progress. Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 52 , 2001, pp. 471-499.
27. Sebastien Helie, Science, C., Centre-ville, C. P. S., Hlie, S., & Cousineau, D.,1998.
Mixed Effects of Training on Transfer.
http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/Proceedings/2005/docs/p929.pdf.

28. Singh.R and Singh. R.K. (1998). Training and Development of University Teachers :
Role of Academic Staff College. Prabandhan : Indian Journal of Management, Volume
3 , Issue 11, pp.1422.
29. Wilson, P. H., Strutton, D., & Ii, M. T. F. (2002). Investigating the Perceptual Aspect of
Sales Training. Journal of personal selling & sales management, Volume XXII, Issue 2,
pp. 7786. Retrieved January 16,2011, from the EBSCO database.